Chhewang Dorje
Recent visit of Home Minister Rajnath Singh to both Leh and Kargil is a welcome initiative on the part of central government. As final solution of Jammu and Kashmir would not be possible until and unless our debate of the so-called ‘Kashmir Problem’ is inclusive of all the regional issues of the state and this visit could be welcome initiative for an inclusive solution of the Kashmir conflict.
The crisis of Jammu and Kashmir and the overall media coverage on the issues has entirely ignored the enormous plurality of the state of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. This plurality is not only in terms of its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity but also in terms of diversity of issues facing the state, as this state has both separatist as well as integrationist forces fighting their own different but common battle of securing its identity in the face of adversity. Dominant discourse in the media on the state of Jammu and Kashmir is separatist forces of Kashmir fighting against the might of Indian state and to some extant in integrationist forces of Jammu fighting for full and complete integration of state with India.But this is entirely inadequate attention in the media and some ill informed political debate on the subject.
Ill informed debate on the Kashmir problem is reflected from the fact that ‘Chinese Occupied Ladakh’ is often referred to as ‘Chinese occupied Kashmir.’ Such is the present discourse on the state of Jammu and Kashmir that it undermines and completely marginalizes the minority but important region of Ladakh and their separate demand for UT and Greater Ladakh from Leh and Kargil respectively. Eastern part of this state, Ladakh is geographically border to China on the east and Pakistan on the North. Ladakh with its two districts Leh and Kargil, itself is not an homogenous category as both Leh and Kargil have different and sometime opposite stand with respect to the issues facing Ladakh and their solution.
Within Kargil there are sub-regional identities asserting their identity and aspiration for example: Demand of Zanskar for separate District and Separate assembly seat is one of them. However two dominant issues in Ladakh is the issue of UT and Greater Ladakh. As the Politics in Ladakh is an reaction to the separatist politics of Kashmir and the demand of UT and Greater Ladakh from Leh and Kargil respectively can also be seen this context of reaction to the politics of Kashmir. This demand for UT and Greater Ladakh emanates from deep-rooted alienation and a widely shared perception among the Ladakhi of having treated as colony by the Kashmiri. In addition to this the Ladakh’s pre 1834 independent existence as a Kingdom infuses a desire of self-governanceand also encourages it for its independent existence from Kashmir. Kashmir being Muslim majority and Ladakh’s fear of plebiscite and its adverse effect further encourages Ladakh for an independent existence from Kashmir.
The demand for UT has an long history and it dates backs to May 4, 1949 when Cheewang Rigzin, President LBA submitted a memorandum to the than Prime Minister Nehru, and pleaded that Ladakh is not be bound by the decision of a plebiscite, should the Muslim majority of the State decide in favour of Pakistan. They sought to be governed directly by the Government of India, or to be amalgamated with the Hindu-majority parts of Jammu to form a separate province, or to join East Punjab. Failing all options, they would be forced to consider the option of reuniting with Tibet. But the demand for Greater Ladakh from Kargil is of recent origin mostly promoted by present MLA from Kargil Asghar Ali Karbalai. This demand for Greater Ladakh is again a reaction to the demand of UT from Leh and it’s perceived the fear of domination from Leh. The majority of the Muslims of Kargil are vehemently opposed to Union Territory status for Ladakh. They refuse to consider joining Leh because they feel that Kargil being considerably poor and under-developed compared to Leh, would suffer neglect at the hands of a Buddhist- dominated administration. Concept of Greater Ladakh draws its origin from the pre independence geographical region of LadakhWazzarat that included Baltistan with present Ladakh.
But rationally the Idea of Greater Ladakh and its becoming reality is questionable as that would require an all out war or redrawing of LOC, with Pakistan to include Gilgit and Skardu, which is geographical part of this proposed idea of Greater Ladakh. So the idea of Greater Ladakh, brainchild of Asghar Ali Karbaliwould only undermine the demand for UT and as this would bifurcate the region of Ladakh on ideological basis. Present tussle between Leh and kargilon the issues of Union Territory and Greater Ladakh and its communalization is further intensified by the fact that the Ladakh region has just one parliamentary seat. And communal mobilization during election by the candidates from Leh and Kargil adds to the mistrust between the two communities.
After the 1989 agitation for Union Territory,Leh district was granted a measure of Independence from Kashmir through the institutionalization of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council in September 1995. At the tripartite talks between the central government, the State government and LBA leaders on October 29, 1989, andan agreement was reached whereby the LBA (Ladakh Buddhist Assocaition) withdrew its demand for Union Territory status in favor of Autonomous Hill Council on the lines of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. This withdrawal of Union Territory in favor of Hill Council was done because LBA leaders might have realized that Union Territory status would require an amendment to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which would be difficult task given the hostility of the Kargil Muslims and the Kashmiri leadership. As this would also require consent of state legislature and the constituent assembly of the state are also required to amend Article 370. The Hill Council was accepted as a compromise to provide a mechanism for self-governance by granting autonomy to Ladakh in administration, economy and planning.
Constant demand for autonomy from the state leadership and the demand for pre – 1953 status and its materialization would push the demand from Ladakh for UT into periphery and would further marginalize Ladakhi. Autonomy in the state of Jammu and Kashmir has never been democratic and it has mostly marginalized the minority population of Ladakh as most of the time autonomy becomes autocratic. This autocracy is reflected form the fact of constant fiscal control from the state legislature and low budget allocation for Ladakh. And this is all happening when we have our own constitution for the state. The constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was adopted on 17 November 1956 and starts with the word “We, the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,, having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves…” So on this day the state of Jammu and Kashmir was formally incorporated into the Indian union and it was ratified by the then constituent assembly. But this ratification is not enough for the Central Government to grant UT to Ladakh as article 370 of the Indian constitution grant special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 3 of Indian constitution states that “Indian state is indestructible union of destructible state” but in the case of Jammu and Kashmir this does not apply because of article 370 and its special provision. Under Article 370 the Indian Parliament cannot increase or reduce the borders of the state. And any action of the Union Legislature or Union Executive which results in the alteration of the name or territories or an international treaty or agreement affecting the disposition of any part of the territory of the state would require the consent of the State Legislature or the State Executive (as the case may be) to be effective. The Union has no power to suspend the Constitution of J&K.
On the other hand, the State Government has always tried to undermine the demand for UT from Ladakh often by creating faultline in the leadership. The State Government responded to Ladakh’s demands for regional autonomy by undercutting the political base of such groups and creating alternative political alignments, often along communal lines. Supporting Thiksey Rinpoche against Bakula Rinpochey and Muslim leadership of Kargil against Buddhist leadership of Leh are examples of such divisive tactics from the Kashmiri Administration. Division of Ladakh into two districts was such instances when the state leadership tried to undermine demand of Union Territory from Ladakh. Can center grant UT to Ladakh would be difficult question to answer, as many in the Centre Government feel that granting of UT for Ladakh, would have unintended consequences as any constitutional and administrative action could dilute India’s stand on Kashmir. An amendment in article 370 of Indian constitution would be possibility through which granting of UT for Ladakh is a possibility. But before that both Leh and Kargil needs a unanimous stand on this issues, as any difference between the two would be opportunity for many to exploit the same.
(The author is Research Scholar JNU, Delhi)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel